update_category

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the PUT endpoint, immediate effect on frontend navigation, non-reversibility but overwritability via repeated calls, and the return dict structure (success, resource_id, message). This is thorough behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-organized into labeled sections (purpose, API, return, side effects), each providing distinct and relevant information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loads the core purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a moderate-complexity update tool with a simple schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, partial-update behavior, return structure, and side effects. It lacks explicit error-handling or prerequisite details (e.g., category existence validation), but is otherwise comprehensive enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Both parameters are already documented in the schema (100% coverage), but the description adds meaningful context by explaining partial-update semantics and giving example attribute keys (name, sort, parent) that clarify the shape of category_data beyond the schema's generic example.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the tool updates product category data and lists specific attributes (name, sort order, parent category), clearly distinguishing it from create/delete category siblings. The [WRITE] marker and PUT endpoint reinforce its update purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context with the partial-update instruction ('only fields passed are modified; unpassed fields won't be overwritten'), which explains when and how to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like create_category or delete_category, so it stops short of a full 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.